Of relativism and an exploitive, douchey Christian

I've engaged in a fun exchange with a Christian on The Redheaded Skeptic blog. First off, let me say I find it AMAZINGLY unsympathetic, cruel and obnoxious to take advantage of people when they're down. The article on the blog was about the author's realizations about the end of her marriage to a Christian conservative. Basically, one Carl Gobelman (the one I have been exchanging comments with) saw this as an opportunity to push Christianity by "supporting" her against her ex, who, in his opinion, "erred" in his Christianity, but he made sure to push what real Christianity should be. Called on that, he asserted his belief of objective truth (which of course translates as 'I'm absolutely right and you're wrong', or as he put it, "proof is in the pudding" referring to his views and the Christian bible).

Well I think the objective truth thing is bunk, his exploitation of the situation crap, his pontificating ridiculous, and now find his "argumentation" style is sadly typical of Christian debaters, loaded with deception, distraction, and of course, obfuscation. Feel free to read the comments. I entered late, so others already had some exchanges with Carl. Below is my most recent responses to his comments...

Here's the fallacy in your thinking: You see the different denominational positions of Christianity as evidence that Christianity and the Bible are necessarily wrong because if it were right, there would be unanimous agreement on its doctrines.

That's not my position at all, and I don't see how you could arrive at that conclusion based on my previous comments. The fallacy in your thinking lies either in believing your reading comprehension skills are adequate enough to keep up with me or in believing I and anyone else reading your comments can't see a straw man attempt. I'm not familiar enough with you to decide whether you're incompetent or deceitful just yet.

My point was and is that in light of both the current variations in interpretation between not just different branches of Christianity but even between different members of the same branch, and in how interpretations have changed over time (closely in line with changes in the views of society), citing the bible and pontification from a position of authority is laughable, and that should there be an objective truth, it's far from clear which one of you has it, if any of you do at all, or are anywhere close. Also, in light of these variations, especially ones that have evolved over time, one need look no further than your own religion for evidence of relative truth.

According to your argument, these four men wouldn't be able to hold a civil conversation about faith because they're too busy asserting that the other guy is wrong.

Again, I made no such claim, and I don't see how you could arrive at such a conclusion from my previous comments. What, are you asserting that people who aren't in 100% agreement must then be incapable of holding a civil conversation, and all parties will just resort to nothing but calling each other wrong? That's absurd.

Do all evolutionists agree on every point of fact with 100% clarity? I don't think so.

First off, proof that the previous quote was absurd.

Second, there's a drastic difference between disagreements within science and disagreements within faiths, and that is that in science, no one asserts with absolute authority that they're right nor close their eyes to new theories and evidence. There's a constant search for answers in science, and debate over the implications of evidence. New discoveries force new understandings in science. Far from being the "shifting sands" that Craig uses to refer to science, it's a self-correcting field, and understanding is generally prefaced as being what we know now, subject to change. Comparing science then and religion is beyond apples and oranges, pal.

Now let me clarify a point before you go hopelessly off road again. I'm not asserting that all truth is relative. Logic and math are not relative. Physical properties are not relative. I could go on. Much though that is asserted as objective and absolute, like morality, I don't see as objective and absolute, but rather subjective. Killing is wrong, yet right when facing mortal danger? Come on. Even your bible makes allowances for situational necessity, although I fail to see how having to dash enemy's babies on rocks or enslaving their women was a necessity. Ah, but those were different times, right? Hello, relativism. ;)

Finally, it really just amazes me that you and a couple of others have taken my comments to Laura’s original post (which were meant sincerely to offer support, compassion, and consolation to her plight) and turned it into an opportunity to grind an axe against Christianity.

That's because your "support" was actually an attempt to exploit her misfortune and take advantage of her current state to push your Christianity. That, sir, is both obnoxious and highly offensive.

Here's a challenge for you - next time you come upon someone you feel needs support, see if you can do it without making any reference to Christianity. My bet is you can't, and I see that as no different than someone who needs a drink to get through the day, or a smoke or something harder. Oh wait, actually those people aren't as bad since they don't usually push others to do what they're doing.


*Note* - Aside from the already present drive to respond to asshats like this, I can't resist the added incentive of standing by another redhead having to face such an asshat. :)